Early Childhood Education and Care

Early Childhood Education and Care No. 4, 2012

Editorial

Contents Executive summary

2

Introduction & background

2

Benefits

4

Disadvantages & concerns

6

The importance of quality

6

What is Ireland doing?

7

How do we compare?

9

Challenges

11

Future plans

12

No liability is accepted to any person arising out of any reliance on the contents of this paper. Nothing herein constitutes professional advice of any kind. This document contains a general summary of developments and is not complete or definitive. It has been prepared for distribution to Members to aid them in their Parliamentary duties. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but not with members of the general public.

A new programme of early childhood care and education also known as the Free Pre-School Year (FPSY) was introduced in 2010. Over 60,000 children take part, at a cost of €166m per year. This Spotlight puts the FPSY in the context of early childhood education and care (ECEC) in Ireland more generally and internationally, focusing on the OECD and Europe. Clear educational, labour market and social benefits, seen as important for the development of the Smart Economy, accrue from quality ECEC programmes. Further to this, ECEC in general provides good return on investment – with an Irish estimate putting the return at up to €7 for every €1 spent. There is particular interest in maintaining quality in ECEC, as only high quality provision produces the benefits noted. Potential negative impacts around starting formal education too early and long hours spent in out-of-home care are discussed. The Government plans to retain the Free PreSchool Year and extend it to two years per child when funds allow. April 2012 Library & Research Service Central Enquiry Desk: 618 4701/ 4702

1

Executive summary Early childhood education and care (ECEC) is important for individual educational and social progress as well as national economic development. A large body of evidence from social science, psychology and neuroscience, demonstrates the importance of early years for later development. Investments in human capital yield the highest returns in the pre-school stage, dropping dramatically after that. While family life is clearly the major influence on young children, it is a difficult area to influence. So, ECEC is an important policy for all children and especially for trying to assist children to overcome disadvantage. Internationally, evidence shows the benefits of ECEC in the fields of education, labour market outcomes and reduced anti-social behaviours (e.g. participation in crime). The effects are positive, long-lasting and largest for the most disadvantaged. Cost-benefit analysis show that ECEC is a good investment, Irish estimates put return on investment as high as €7 for every €1 spent. However, potential disadvantages can arise from starting formal education, especially reading, too early and from long hours spent in childcare by children aged five and below. In Ireland, compulsory education begins at age six. The structure of provision for children under six is a mix of public and private provision. This Spotlight focuses on publicly-funded provision. This includes almost all five-year-olds and half of four-year-olds who are enrolled in infant classes in primary school and some targeted interventions for children from disadvantaged backgrounds. It also includes the most recent policy development in the area: the introduction of the Early Childhood Care and Education scheme, also known as the Free Pre-school Year (FPSY), in 2010. This is a free year of part-time pre-school education for children aged between three and four. The take up rate of this scheme, at 94%, has been very high. It is delivered by private, voluntary and community providers (some 4,300 of them).

The Free Pre-School Year alone costs in the region of €166m per year. The most recent budget saw some cutbacks, but the universal, free nature of the scheme has been preserved. International comparison in terms of spending is difficult as the most recent analyses do not take account of the FPSY scheme. However, the most up-to-date data available (2007) show that Ireland is some way off the UNICEF goal of public spending on ECEC of 1% of GDP. Most other European countries have statutory access to pre-school provision for two years for each child from age three. Comparisons show that Denmark, Sweden, UK and France are the top spending nations in terms of proportion of GDP. Quality is a key determinant of positive effect. Measures of quality include high levels of staff qualification, smaller teacher-child ratios, a professionally developed curriculum, and monitoring / inspection. In Ireland, a national quality assurance programme is in place for services working with children from 0-6 years. There is also a professionally developed curriculum. Challenges in the ECEC field in Ireland include: ensuring frequent and consistent inspections; staffing issues around pay, qualifications and status; and securing continued funding. The Minister for Children and Youth Affairs has indicated a desire to extend universal free preschool provision from one to two years per child, subject to the availability of funds.

Introduction & background This Spotlight begins with some definitions and background to early childhood education. The following sections use selected studies to present key messages about:  

 

the benefits and concerns related to early childhood education and care; what public policy currently provides for in Ireland, with a focus on the most recent development – the introduction of a Free Pre-school Year (FPSY) for all children; how this compares with other countries; and some related challenges.

2

Early childhood education or childcare? In the international literature the field is generally described as early childhood education and care (ECEC). This usage reflects an understanding of a continuum of care and the importance of both care and education through all the early years from birth onwards. In Ireland, the distinction between care and education has been more pronounced than in many other countries.1 Nonetheless, the term ECEC has received growing acceptance in Ireland2 and it is used in this Spotlight. It has been argued that: ‘Care and education are co-essential and should be conceived as a continuum process.’3 Indeed, it is the caring nature of the relationships that make for the quality or otherwise of educational settings. Early childhood education generally means education before the start of formal school or before the age at which children are required to attend school. In Ireland, it covers the period from birth to six years, as all children must be in school (or receiving education) from the age of six. ECEC and the ‘Smart Economy’ Early childhood education and care has emerged as an important economic issue. A link has been established between the direction of economic development and early years education. The 2008 report ‘Building Ireland’s Smart Economy’ identified lifelong learning as important to the achievement of a highly skilled workforce: ‘Ireland cannot afford to leave anyone behind in the drive to improve the skills and competencies…required to service a Smart economy. This effort starts with pre-school education, which has been demonstrated as a very effective intervention with proven and social benefits...’.4 1

Hayes, N (2010) ‘Childcare? Early childhood education and care? Towards an integrated early years policy for young children in Ireland’, Early Years, Vol. 30 (1) 2 Ibid, pg. 69 3 Menchini, L. (2010) ‘The ongoing transition of child care in the economically advanced countries’, Proceedings of the ChildONEurope Seminar; European Network of National Observatories on Childhood. 4

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/BuildingIrelands

Economic and equality goals coincide The benefits of ECEC accrue disproportionately for those who are disadvantaged. As such, the goals of equality and economic development coincide in this policy field. The Council of the European Union draws together these strands as follows: ‘Improving efficiency and equity of education and training systems at all levels – from the early years through to adulthood has a fundamental role to play in achieving the Europe 2020 goals of smart, sustainable and inclusive growth.’5 Educational disadvantage can be discussed in terms of the accumulation of well-established warning signs. UNICEF presents the following individual ‘at risk’ markers – a home in which families experience: poverty, unemployment, low parental education, substance abuse, mental illness or culture / language problems. ‘Research from the USA shows the beneficial impact of ECEC on children from poor families is twice as high as for those with a more advantaged background.’6 Why so early? There has been a growing recognition of the importance of the first years of life to later learning and social development. 7 This learning, from many fields, is summarised as: ‘a large body of research in social science, psychology and neuroscience shows that skill begets skill; that learning begets learning.’8 There is strong evidence that once a child falls behind, they are likely to remain behind9 and so, SmartEconomy.pdf 5 Official Journal of the European Union; 15.6.2011 6 European Commission (2011) Early childhood education and care: Providing all our children with the best start for the world of tomorrow. 7 For more on early years intervention see: L&RS Spotlight (2012) ‘Well-being:promoting mental health in schools’ http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/housesoftheoire achtas/libraryresearch/spotlights/spotWellbeing280212_10 1701.pdf 8 Heckman, James J. (2006) The economics of investing in children, UCD Geary Institute 9 Ibid.

3

to some extent, the basis for future learning and social and emotional development is set before children start school. Thus: ‘the foundations of policy lie in the realization that learning abilities are formed during the first years of childhood.’10

children’s learning.15 It sets out a range of measures to assist parents in supporting their child’s education, especially in the early years. However, while the home environment has a greater effect on children than outside care, the opportunities for policymakers to exert influence are fewer. It is argued that: ‘even if we were to agree that familial ‘cultural capital’ is crucial, it would appear difficult to conceive of a policy that corrects for differences in parenting quality and dedication.’16

Further to this, where children do not get a good start in life, early intervention is essential as ‘schools are generally ill-equipped to remedy a bad start.’11 Studies of the relative return on skills investment in early life show that ‘investments yield the highest returns in the pre-school stage (0-6) and decline exponentially thereafter…the returns are especially high for underprivileged children.’12 The OECD argues that: ‘Early investment in children is vital. Investment needs to be in ‘Dora the Explorer’ years of early childhood relative to the ‘Facebook’ years of later childhood.’13 Early years’ spending can be more effective than spending on adults too. An analysis for the European Commission found: ‘there is considerable European evidence that education and training policies that target low-skilled adults have often been ineffective, while the little European evidence that exists suggests that early investments have important long-lasting effects.’14 Why ECEC and not families? The family is the key influence on young children, and some initiatives are focused on families. The new (2011) national strategy Literacy and numeracy for Living and Life emphasises the importance of family support for 10

Esping-Andersen, G. (2008) ‘Childhood investment and skill formation’, International Tax and Public Finance, 15: 19-44 11 Esping-Andersen, Gosta (2007): ‘Equality Opportunities in an increasingly hostile world’, pg. 22; http://dcpis.upf.edu/~gosta-espingandersen/materials/equal_oportunities.pdf 12 Ibid. 13 OECD (2009) Doing better for children 14 Woessmann, L. and Schutz, G. (2006) Efficiency and equity in European education and training systems; European Commission

Benefits Disadvantaged backgrounds There is a strong body of research from the US finding that ECEC programmes for children from disadvantaged backgrounds help them to achieve: better educational outcomes such as test scores; grade retention; high school graduation; and later in life, better labour market outcomes and reduced criminal activity.17 One remarkable aspect of these programmes is that the monetary benefits have exceeded the costs by a multiple. The features of such successful programmes are intervention at very early ages, an intensive set-up, and working with parents including home visits.18 This research evidence on children from disadvantaged backgrounds is being echoed in studies of the general population and in Europe. Below, results from some more recent studies with a European focus, are presented. Impact on English and maths Many studies show the impact of quality ECEC on educational outcomes. The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education [EPPE] study in Britain, involving over 3,000 children found that high quality pre-school accounted for big improvements in maths and English test scores over children with no pre-school (see Figure 1).

15

http://www.education.ie/admin/servlet/blobservlet/lit_num_s trat.pdf?language=EN&igstat=true 16 http://dcpis.upf.edu/~gosta-espingandersen/materials/equal_oportunities.pdf 17 Woessmann & Schutz, op cit.; pg. 13 18 Ibid.

4

Figure 1: Impact of pre-school quality on English and maths at age 11 (Reference Group: Home children) - EPPE Study in England19 English

Maths 0.34

Effect Size

0.4 0.22

0.2

0.26

0.24

0.12 0.12

0 Low Quality

Medium Quality

High Quality

This study presented data suggesting that ‘the benefit deriving from 18 months of pre-school is similar to that gained from 6 years of primary school.’20 The European Commission also points to the relative advantage to be gained.

Text Box 1: Example from France24 In France, universal free pre-school (école maternelle) is available to children starting at age 3. During the 1960s and 1970s, a large expansion of the programme led to the proportion of 3-year olds enrolled increasing from 35% to 90%, and of 4-yearolds from 60% to 100%. State-collected data show that pre-school had a sizeable and persistent positive effect on a child’s ability to succeed in school and obtain higher wages in the labour market.

Benefits for all Cognitive, social and emotional development, readiness for school and performance in school are also positively affected by ECEC programmes (associations are particularly strong for children from disadvantaged backgrounds).25 These effects hold after allowing for a vast array of family background and school effects. ‘the crucial point is that early intervention programmes that include strong behavioural and cognitive stimulus can be effective in equalizing outcomes, especially of the most-at-risk.’

‘There is clear evidence that participation in high quality ECEC leads to significantly better attainment in international tests on basic skills, such as PISA21...equivalent to between one and two school years of progress.’ Labour market and social impact The effects of ECEC are long-term and reach beyond the field of education. For instance, preschool is associated with increased qualifications and earnings up to age 33.22 Longitudinal studies that have examined children over long periods, stretching into adulthood and working life, have documented social benefits such as better health and lower incidence of anti-social behaviour, including crime.23

19

Start Strong (2010); pg. 12 Melhuish, E. (2011a) ‘Preschool matters’, Science, Vol. 333, 15 July 21 PISA is an international assessment of the reading, science and mathematical literacy of 15-year-old students. 22 Melhuish, E. (2011a) op. cit.; pg. 300 23 Hasan, A. (2007) ‘Public policy in early childhood education and care’ Intl J of Childcare and education policy, Vol 1 (1) 20

‘It is well established that the gains to early childhood investment are especially large for the most underprivileged.’ 26 Overall, the European Commission maintains that ‘access to universally available, high quality, inclusive ECEC services is beneficial to all’. Cost-benefit analysis While the social justice arguments in favour of ECEC may be strong, the argument on the grounds of economic efficiency is more powerful.27 Indeed, one reason the US programmes have been so influential in Europe is the large returns on investment discerned by their evaluations, up to $16 for every dollar invested. In Ireland, the National Economic and Social Forum (NESF) made the case in 2005 for state funding for universal pre-school stating:

24

Ibid. Woessman, L and Schutz, G. (2006) op. cit.; pg. 14 26 Gosta Esping-Andersen (2007) op cit. 27 Heckman, op. cit. 25

5

‘it can be readily justified as the longerterm societal benefits that would accrue on the basis of this investment are at a ratio of 1:7 (or 1:4 using more conservative estimates).’28 The main components of the benefits estimated in this model are: educational outcomes; justice system; labour force earnings and taxes; and value of childcare for families. When are these benefits like to occur? Evidence from the EPPE study in the UK suggests the following: 29     

From age 2 all children benefit from preschool; The quality of pre-school matters; Part-time has equal benefit to full-time; Quality of pre-school effects persist until at least the end of primary school; High quality pre-school can protect a child from the consequences of attending a low effective school.

greater on boys than on girls. Professor Katz maintains that children should not start formal learning until they are seven. 31 The effect of out-of-home care Further debates about potential disadvantages around ECEC focus on the youngest children – aged 0-3 years and behavioural problems. One of the most influential critics, Australian psychologist, Steve Biddulph, argues that children three years and younger should receive their care from ‘their own special person’. He makes the case that: ‘the first three years of life are those when children are too vulnerable, too much in need of intimate care and all it can offer, to be left to group care by strangers.’32 There is some evidence that long hours childcare can increase acting-out problem behaviour (i.e. aggression and disobedience) in children aged three to five as well as younger children.33

Disadvantages & concerns Formal learning too early Broadly speaking there are two approaches to ECEC. One focuses the acquisition of particular skills and on school-readiness (this approach is common in the UK, Belgium, Italy and the USA). The other takes a more holistic approach to child-wellbeing and development, integrating education and care, and is more focused on the ‘here and now’ than on skills for tomorrow. This tradition is prominent in Denmark, Finland, Sweden and Norway.30 There is some criticism that early formal learning, such as that found in the schoolpreparation approach to ECEC, can be detrimental. Lilian Katz, Professor of Education at Illinois University, argues that learning to read too early can dent children’s confidence and put them off for life, with the negative effect being 28

NESF (2005) Early childhood care and education: Report 31; pg.104 29 Mulheish, E. (2011b) ‘The early years and later development – evidence and social policy’ presentation to Growing up in Ireland Conference, Dublin, December 2011 30 Hasan (2007) ‘Public policy in early childhood education and care’, Internat. J. of Child Care and Education Policy, Vol 1 (1)

The importance of quality The quality of ECEC is key to it having the expected benefits. This comes across in all of the international literature. The effect of quality of educational outcomes is demonstrated in Figure 1 (above), showing the markedly more positive effect of high quality pre-school over low quality pre-school on maths and English scores of 11 year olds. Similar effects are shown for social outcomes such as ‘self-regulation’, i.e. the ability to cope with emotions, manage thinking and behaviour and focus attention. It should be noted that the same benefits are not gained from attending low quality pre-school.34 The OECD contends that while quality programmes may cost more (because of higher staff pay, lower ratios etc.), the message is clear ‘quality costs but it’s worth the investment’.35 31

Curtis, P. (2007) Under-sevens ‘too young to learn to read’, The Guardian, 22 Nov 2007 32 Cited in UNICEF (2008), op cit., pg.19 33 OECD (2000) Doing better for children, pg. 114 34 Melhuish (2011a); op cit. 35 OECD (2012) Education:quality standards essential to boost child learning and development, says OECD. (Press release).

6

This raises the question ‘what constitutes quality in ECEC?’. Key features are set out below and quality measures in Ireland are addressed in the next section.

Figure 2: Structure of publicly funded ECEC in Ireland - universal and targeted

Text Box 2: What is ‘high quality’? Definitions of high‐quality early care and education vary, but such care often features many of the following characteristics:36 • Teachers with four‐year college degrees in early childhood education; assistant teachers with two‐year degrees.

• Smaller teacher‐child ratios.

What is Ireland doing? Unlike other European countries, Ireland does not have a long tradition of young children attending pre-school services.37 Current provision for children under six (the age compulsory education must start by) is a mix of public and private care and of universal provision and targeted schemes. Figure 2 charts the structure of publicly funded provision. The Free Pre-school Year, described below, replaced a direct payment to parents, intended to offset the costs of childcare, the Early Childcare Supplement (ECS). This began in 2006 and was phased out in 2009. At its peak it cost €480m a year (total cost 2006-2011 was €1.422bn).

School Infant classes intake of 4 and 5 year olds

Early Start Scheme (DEIS Schools) Rutland Street Project Traveller PreSchools (Being phased out)

Community Childcare Subvention

• For three‐ and four‐year olds, use of a professionally developed pre-school curriculum.

• Monitoring and site visits by either government or accrediting agency.

Targeted

Free PreSchool Year (private / voluntary / community providers)

• Teachers and assistant teachers are well paid and have ongoing professional development opportunities (which results in low staff turnover).

• Interventions with family units such as supportive home visits.

Universal

Universal Provision Universal provision takes two forms: early school enrolment (before age six) and the new Early Childhood Care and Education Scheme. •Early school enrolment: While school (or education at home) is not compulsory until age six, in practice, almost all five-year-olds and about half of four-year-olds attend primary school.38 •Early Childhood Care and Education Scheme / Free Pre-School Year (FPSY): The Early Childhood Care and Education scheme, also known- and referred to here - as the Free Pre-School Year (FPSY), introduced in 2010, provides for a year of free part-time care and education for children of pre-school age. 39 This development was in line with NESF proposals and broadly welcomed by lobby groups such as Barnardos. In general, children are eligible for the FPSY scheme if they are aged between 3 years 2 months and 4 years 7 months on 1 September of the year that they will be starting. The provision amounts to 3 hours per day, 5 days a week over a 38-week year for children enrolled in participating playschools. Children enrolled in childcare services receive 2 hours

36

Lynch (2007) cited in Public Policy Forum (Milwaukee, USA)(2009) The price of quality. 37 Department of Education and Skills (2010) Intercultural Education Strategy.

38

Citizens’ Information website. This scheme is administered by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. 39

7

and 15 minutes per day over a 50-week period.40 How many children and providers? In 2010, the number of children participating in the universal FPSY was 63,000. This number is set to rise to 68,000 in 2014 due to an increased birth rate).41 The take-up rate is high, at 94% of the target population. This is attributed to the free and equal access for all children. Some 4,300 pre-school providers (95% of all pre-school services) are participating in the scheme. Targeted Provision42 In addition to the provision for children in the infant classes in primary school, the Department of Education and Skills funds some specific preprimary services. These include: •The Early Start pre-school project, which was established in 1994/95 in 40 primary schools in designated areas of urban disadvantage. The project involves an educational programme to enhance overall development, help prevent school failure and offset the effects of social disadvantage. The total number of spaces provided by the existing 40 Early Start centres is 1,680. •The Rutland Street project, established in 1969, is a pre-school attached to the Rutland Street primary school in Dublin. Although not part of Early Start, it was used to pilot many of the approaches later incorporated in the Early Start project. •Traveller pre-schools: The policy as set out in the 2006 Traveller Education Strategy is to phase out segregated Traveller pre-schools (only a small number remain). In addition to the above schemes, there is a Community Childcare Subvention available to providers who care for children from certain targeted low-income families. 40

Citizens’ Information website Dept. of Children and Youth Affairs (2011) Press Release: Minister Fitzgerald welcomes securing future of Universal Free Pre-School Year. 5 December; http://www.dcya.gov.ie/docs/Minister_Fitzgerald_welcomes _securing_future_of_universal_fr/1725.htm 42 Source: Dept. of Children and Youth Affairs: http://www.dcya.gov.ie/viewdoc.asp?DocID=1233&ad=1& mn=earb&nID=4 41

Targeted vs. universal provision The basic dilemma with targeted provision is how to ensure that all those in need are reached.43 The geographic based approach to targeting disadvantaged schools means that it is far from certain that all those who could benefit are included, as not all children who are disadvantaged live in disadvantaged areas. Universal approaches have the advantage of ensuring nearly all children get the same standard of service. However, some children may require more resources and attention. The lower participation rates of children from immigrant families is a concern highlighted in the international literature. Esping-Andersen argues that: ‘some form of affirmative action, including perhaps special incentives to target groups, might…be called for to accompany a universal approach.’ Government commitments The current Programme for Government sets out commitments as follows: 

Maintain the free pre-school year and improve quality through implementing standards and reviewing training.



As resources allow, provide targeted early childhood education measures for disadvantaged children.

Who delivers? With the exception of the Early Start and other targeted provisions noted above, early childhood education and care services in Ireland are delivered outside the formal education system. A diverse range of private, community and voluntary interests are involved in crèches, nurseries, pre-schools, naíonraí (Irish language pre-schools), playgroups and daycare services. Apart from the publicly supported schemes outlined above these are mostly paid for privately by parents. Regulation The regulatory environment is split between the Department of Education and Skills and the Department of Children and Youth Affairs. The former is responsible for activities in primary schools while the later has a Pre-School Inspectorate which monitors the implementation

43

Esping-Andersen, Gosta (2007) op cit.; pg. 22

8

of the Childcare Care (Pre-School Services)(No. 2) Regulations 2006. How is the Free Pre-school Year funded? The Department of Children and Youth Affairs (DCYA) is responsible for the funding of the Free Pre-School Year (FPSY). This programme cost €153.5m in 2010 and the Comprehensive Review of Expenditure in 2011 indicated it was expected to cost €166m in 201144 (is substantially less than its predecessor the ECS). In 2012, the Department was subject to savings of €16.5m. In spite of this, FPSY funding was increased to allow for the increasing number of children in the target age range. Nonetheless, Budget 2012 specified savings to be made in the programme from September 2012 in the form of:  

a 3% cut to capitation payments to providers; and an increase in the staff/children ratio (from 1:10 to 1:11).

Both of these measures have been criticised as potentially hazardous to the quality of service provided to children. In particular, the NGO Start Strong has argued that the change in the ratio of staff to children is considered important as: ‘We know from research that the main determinant of the quality of early years services is the relationship between the adult and the children, and the larger the number of children per adult, the less attention each child can receive.’45 The Minister maintains that the Department’s approach to expenditure priorities has been to focus on improving outcomes for children while making the best possible use of resources. She stresses that the free and universal nature of the pre-school year is being maintained, despite pressure on funding.46 Quality in Ireland In Ireland, early childhood education and care is supported by two relevant frameworks: Síolta, on quality, and Aistear, the curriculum framework. Each was developed based on best

national and international policy and practice and following consultation with ECEC practitioners and teachers. Text Box 3: Síolta quality programme What is Síolta?47 Síolta is the National Quality Framework for Early Childhood Education. It is designed to define, assess and support the improvement of quality across all aspects of practice in early childhood care and education settings where children aged from birth to six years are present. These settings include:  Full and part-time daycare  Childminding  Sessional services  Infant classes in primary schools

Staff qualifications The FPSY scheme has introduced minimum qualifications standards for pre-school leaders. A notable feature of the scheme is that there is a premium available for better-qualified staff. This is designed to incentivise higher skill levels among staff. Currently, a higher capitation rate is payable where settings are led by staff with a relevant bachelor’s degree (minimum of Level 7 on the National Framework of Qualifications (NFQ) or equivalent) and have three years’ experience and where all pre-school assistants in the service hold a relevant NFQ level 5 award or equivalent. In addition, an overall workforce development plan for the sector has been in place since 2010.48 This aims to provide ongoing, flexible learning to the ECEC workforce through actions such as modular delivery, recognition of prior learning and improving opportunities to progress from further education to higher education (e.g. universities).

How do we compare? Spending UNICEF recommends that the minimum ‘level of public spending on early childhood education and care (for children aged 0 to 6 years) should not be less than 1 per cent of GDP’.49

44

DCYA (2011) Comprehensive Review of Expenditure: Vote 43. 45 Sure Start (2011) Budget 2012 analysis, http://www.startstrong.ie/files/Start_Strong_Budget_2012_ Analysis.pdf 46 DCYA Press Release, 5 December 2011.

47 48

http://www.siolta.ie/about.php

http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/earlyyears/workforce_d ev_plan.pdf 49 UNICEF (2008) The child care transition, pg. 14

9

Figure 3 shows that in 2007 Ireland spent approximately 0.3% GDP on ECEC. This is half the OECD average and well below the 1% target set by UNICEF. The figures, however, date from before the introduction of the Free Preschool Year (due the very recent introduction of the scheme, no international comparisons are available). A number of countries, including China, Canada and New Zealand, are increasing their investment in pre-school education. Models of provision in Europe The OECD provides the following overview of ECEC provision in Europe, and notes Ireland’s position in contrast to its neighbours: ‘Publicly-funded pre-primary provision tends to be more strongly developed in the European than in the non-European countries of the OECD: In Europe, the concept of universal access of 3- to 6year-olds is generally accepted. Most countries in this region provide all children with at least two years of free, publicly-funded provision before they begin primary provision. With the exception of Ireland and the Netherlands, such access is generally a statutory right from the age of 3 years and in some even before that. Early education programmes in Europe are often free and attached to schools. In OECD countries outside Europe, free

early education tends to be only available from age 5, though many children are enrolled from age 4 in Australia, Korea and some US states.’ One notable example is Northern Ireland, where education is compulsory for children who are four years of age before the 1 st of July. From the age of two children may attend a nursery school, a pre-school centre or nursery class in a primary school. This is state funded. All of these educational settings follow the same curriculum and are subject to inspection. The case of Finland Finland tops the league of performers in terms of school systems. The PISA tests of 15-yearolds show it consistently performs as the best in the world. Yet in Finland, children do not start school until age seven, much later than in many other countries. Almost all Finnish children attend one-year of pre-school from age six. How does this information fit into the idea that pre-school education (starting from as young as two) sets the foundation for future learning? The answer seems to lie in high quality preschool care with a holistic approach rather than a focus on education. Finnish parents have universal access to low cost, high quality childcare from the time maternity leave ends. This appears to offset the effect of not starting any more formal education per se until later.

Figure 3: Public spending (% GDP) on childcare and pre-primary education, selected OECD countries (2007) Childcare spending as a % of GDP

Pre-primary spending as a % of GDP

OECD Avg.

Denmark Sweden United Kingdom France Norway Finland Iceland Belgium Romania New Zealand Netherlands Latvia Hungary Italy Mexico Malta Slovenia Spain Czech Republic Germany Australia United States Portugal Luxembourg Korea Japan Austria Poland Estonia Ireland Switzerland Canada

1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0

Notes: (a) Figures for Ireland, Spain and Austria do not distinguish between childcare and pre-primary; totals are shown. (b) It is not clear whether or not the Irish figure includes the Early Childcare Supplement which was payable in 2007.

10

Challenges The challenges in implementing quality ECEC in Ireland include:    

Standards and inspections Staffing issues Links to school Securing funding

Standards and inspections Providers have complained of a lack of HSE inspections. Reports on inspections that do take place are difficult for parents to access.50 The recruitment embargo in the HSE is given as a reason for infrequent inspections and the HSE has acknowledged that it lacks the resources to publish reports online. The industry group, Early Childhood Ireland, is campaigning for annual inspections and greater consistency in how inspections are carried out. Staff qualifications / Pay and status The challenges around skills and pay are interrelated. Qualifications / skills International evidence from the OECD indicates that higher qualifications are strongly associated with better outcomes for children. It is not the qualifications, per se, that matter but the skill level and specialist knowledge that support good relationships and stimulating experiences. In Ireland, the significantly lower levels of qualifications required in the pre-school sector are contrasted with the degree-level required of primary school teachers. And, while the Free Pre-School Year scheme set minimum qualifications for leaders, there are no minimum requirements for other staff. When the FPSY was introduced, Barnardos highlighted that:‘Central to the success of the scheme will be the ongoing professionalization of the sector through staff training and adherence and implementation to quality standards.’

challenges in upskilling ECEC staff. And, the national workforce development plan for ECEC aims to ensure ‘the availability of a skilled qualified workforce capable of delivering high quality ECCE services’. Pay Low status and poor pay are thought to account for the lack of higher qualified staff in the preschool sector.51 Text Box 4: OECD report on quality in ECEC Salary Issues Competitive wages attract a strong professional staff that is more likely to be satisfied with their jobs, perform well and make long-term career commitments leading to lower staff turn-over rates. The latter generally results in stronger relationships between staff and children, calmer, less aggressive child behaviour, and improved language development. Staff with low wages are more likely to take on second jobs, lowering their performance through greater fatigue and less commitment.

The National Childcare Strategy (2000) called for the development of a national pay scale for the sector.52 However, the delivery mechanism of ECEC (apart from primary schools) through the private and community sector means that these organisations are setting staff terms and conditions. Staff diversity In Ireland and internationally, women make up a significant majority of the ECEC workforce. A recent OECD points out that: ‘It is important for all children – particularly boys – to have a strong male role model in the classroom or centre.’53 In Ireland, in 2005, the NESF recommended that: ‘measures to address the underrepresentation of men in ECEC settings should be encouraged’.54 The OECD also calls for greater ethnic diversity among staff. The ECEC workforce development plan does not address issues of gender or ethnic diversity.

51

Ibid. National Childcare Strategy (2000) http://www.inis.gov.ie/en/JELR/Childcare1.pdf/Files/Childca re1.pdf 53 OECD (2011) Encouraging quality in early childhood education and care (ECEC) – Minimum standards matter, OECD, Paris 54 NESF (2005) op cit. 52

The national literacy and numeracy strategy recognises that there are considerable 50

Wayman, S. (2011) ‘Child’s play is top of the agenda’, The Irish Times, 29 March 2011.

11

Links to school Poor links between pre-school and school have been highlighted as a challenge to maximising the effectiveness of early years’ education. In Ireland, the national literacy and numeracy strategy addresses this, with a specific objective to: ‘Ensure that relevant information on the child’s learning and development is transferred from the home to the preschool, to the primary school and to the post-primary school to promote smooth transitions.’55 Securing funding As noted above, figures suggest Ireland’s public spending on ECEC is well below the OECD average and less than half the 1% GDP recommended by UNICEF. Yet, with all public expenditure under pressure, maintaining funding is a challenge in itself, with expanding funding a significant undertaking. The strong body of evidence, including the costbenefit analysis of ECEC is in its favour. The OECD has made a number of arguments for rerouting public spending. A recent a conference paper by William White, Chair of the OECD Economic and Development Review Committee, encouraged Ministers with responsibility for ECEC to lobby for the diversion of funds from other areas of government spending to protect early years’ education. Specifically, he suggested re-directing monies to ECEC from 3rd level education (to be replaced with fees/loans) and from maternity benefits and leave.56 Alternative vision The Irish National Teachers’ Organisation (INTO) proposes expanding school-based preschool for disadvantaged children. Text Box 5: INTO view of development The INTO proposes that the further expansion and development of the Early Start targeted programme should take place in parallel with the universal Free Pre-School Year.

As noted above, Early Start is provided in schools, where staff have higher qualifications than those in the FPSY scheme.57

Future plans As noted above, the Programme for Government indicates the desire to expand early years’ provision, as resources allow. This proposal is detailed in the Department of Children and Youth Affairs’ Comprehensive Review of Expenditure (2011). This report states that the Minister is exploring the possibility of the future introduction of a second free pre-school year under the FPSY programme. It is considered that this would: ‘be of benefit to child development and educational outcomes, in particular to improving communication and orallanguage competence of young children and their readiness to develop early mathematical language and ideas.’58 The introduction of a second free pre-school year is supported by Early Childhood Ireland. The Department’s Expenditure Review suggests a second year for all children would cost in the region of €60m in the first full year, depending on how it were to be structured. The Minister is also considering issues specific to children with special needs and the Free Pre-school Year. There have been calls for the Government to put in place a successor to the National Childcare Investment Programme (2006-2010) which provided €575m to increase the number of places in the sector and improve the physical and training infrastructure.59 Future policy direction will be set out in two relevant strategies being prepared by the Department of Children and Youth Affairs:  

a new National Children’s Strategy, 2012-2017; and an Early Years Strategy (consultation on which is to commence shortly).

55

Op. cit. White, William R. (2012) ‘How to finance public investment in high quality early childhood education and care when budgets are tight’, Norway:OECD High level roundtable on ECEC, January 2012. 56

57

Personal communication with INTO representative. Department of Children and Youth Affairs (2011) op cit. 59 Barnardos (2010) Early childhood care and education 58

12